git-flow

This is the workflow we currently follow: Finish a feature and merge it into develop branch Create a release branch from develop Run build scripts on release branch Create a pull request to merge the release branch into master Accept the release branch pull request and merge The master branch can then deploy to live server by running deploy command This all works great, except in my Git repo my branches are out of sync master is now behind develop because it doesn't have the merge commits that happened from the pull request merging the release branch into develop . But master is also ahead of

If developers were to work on different branches for different features I understand that they can give a QA build from the feature branch and once it is tested it can be merged with "develop". But if the QA team is fairly large and can test multiple features at once how can they be given a build containing features that are residing in different branches? VonC But if the QA team is fairly large and can test multiple features at once how can they be given a build containing features that are residing in different branches? That would be by: setting up an integration branch, reset to the latest

I have a few questions around how do you handle testing and deployment when many developers are working on the same thing (that cant be split further) and you still want to deploy daily. Currently we follow Gitflow where we have our features branches that everyone is working on an isolated feature. Features are merged into develop branch. Every now and then we take some time to cater for user requirements / bug fixes / quick features etc. The end goal is to get those to PROD asap. My question is what process would you suggest such that: 1) We can deploy without introducing bureaucracy (e.g.

I am new to git and understand a little bit about Git. My company is currently have 1 program and the program divides into 5 products. each product is handling by different team. Currently my company git have 5 branches such as : dev = this branch is for developer to build program (dev.program.com) test(alpha) = this branch is for tester to test the program (test.program.com) staging(beta) = this branch is for tester test the program (double check of error ) and client test the program. (stg.program.com) staging-trx = the duplicate of staging and for developer to make sure that no error

I'm using SourceTree and Git-Flow pattern. Now I have prepared a release for my beta-testers to test so I created a new release/v1.0.1 branch. But my mind slipped and I decided to finish (merge into develop and master and tag) the release even though I haven't even sent out the release to my testers. So I would like to have the release branch open up again if my testers finds any bugs I can fix these bugs in the release branch and then when all bugs are fixed I can finish the release. So how can I easily with SourceTree preferably (or using git commands) revert back to the state when I had the

What options do you have if you want to "undo" a feature branch? Let's say you add a new feature supercool-feature which you finish (merge into development and delete the feature branch) and then it goes into a release. But then your users really dislike this supercool-feature . How can I undo/rewind/reverse this feature which has been already merged into development and a release? I'm using SourceTree to do my versioning. Nils Werner Run this command git revert -m 1 <sha1 of M> Explanation Your situation is about as follows: A-B-----C---D-M # master \ / X-Y---Z- # supercool-feature A, B, C

I am trying to introduce Git flow to my team. We are a fairly small team and quite agile. We want to release once a day and this means we have limited time towards testing all the changes in the day. Business team wants to be able to control the features that are getting released although its not ideal. Git flow doesn't seem to accommodate this very well. After cutting a release branch from develop what is the best way to merge selected features to master. Is cherry picking the only option? Is there a better way? The standard git flow handling is not ideal if the business team wants to control

I'm working with a repository that in theory should be following the Gitflow Workflow (see A successful git branching model by Vincent Driessen). However, the initial commit on the repository was made on the develop branch and there is no master branch to be seen. It's nearing release time and I need to create a master branch that reflects the production-ready state of the project which should've been there from the start. Keep in mind that the develop branch has multiple feature branches coming off of it. The repository is entirely local and hasn't been pushed. My idea was to create an orphan